ACLU and Heller

The ACLU has done a fantastic job protecting freedom of speech & religion, right to due process, and the right to privacy.

Click to expand...

Speech, privacy, and due process, sure. Religion? No. The ACLU's support for the free exercise clause is decidedly mixed.

From the ACLU press release, link in the previous post, emphasis mine

The Right To Bear Arms

The Second Amendment has not been the subject of much Supreme Court discussion through the years. To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the Second Amendment as a collective right connected to the concept of a "well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to possess guns for private purposes.

In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.'s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.

The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.

Click to expand...

They're concerned about how much the Supreme Court ruling will restrict the state from controlling our arms ("straitjacket").

It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.

Click to expand...

The phrase "constitutional straightjacket" seemed pretty dire to, so I looked up its legal history. Often a colorful legal term has history, and may not mean what it appears to a layman like me.

It turns out that the term may not be so dire (maybe some lawyers on THR will comment) - Justice Warren used it in Miranda v. Arizona (emphasis mine):

Therefore we cannot say that the Constitution necessarily requires adherence to any particular solution for the inherent compulsions of the interrogation process as it is presently conducted. Our decision in no way creates a constitutional straitjacket which will handicap sound efforts at reform, nor is it intended to have this effect.We encourage Congress and the States to continue their laudable search for increasingly effective ways of protecting the rights of the individual while promoting efficient enforcement of our criminal laws.

Click to expand...

http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/decisions/Miranda.htm

In that decision - if I read it correctly, and I am no lawyer - the Chief Justice
is simply saying that the court was not restricting the method by which states might guarantee an accused's right to counsel during interrogation.

I don't think that Justice Warren was commenting pejoratively on his own decision.

That leads me to believe that the term constitutional straitjacket may be less negative that a naive read may suggest.

Mike

mr.72 said:

cherry-picking the BoR is rather distasteful to some. Hard to support an organization who does so openly.

Click to expand...

What about the NRA? No one seems to complain about them not protecting other rights. I've never expected the ACLU to defend the 2nd, have you? I would prefer if they did, but they've never done anything that would give me the impression they would.

MrAcheson said:

Religion? No. The ACLU's support for the free exercise clause is decidedly mixed.

Click to expand...

You may have a point there. I never was a fan of them teaming up with Jerry Falwell but despite my personal bias I could see the reasoning behind it and agreed with it.

I think that if SCOTUS really wanted to represent most Americans, they would call a special session and ban the ACLU.
Zeke

I think that if SCOTUS really wanted to represent most Americans, they would call a special session and ban the ACLU.

Click to expand...

Isn't protecting the constitutional rights of the minority from the power of the majority - most Americans - precisely the role of the SCOTUS in our form of government?

The SCOTUS has rules that even if the majority of Americans want to deny us the right to keep and bear arms, they can't. That's a good thing.

The core of the disagreements was wether duly elected officials representing (presumably) the majority of people in DC could deny other people in DC the right to keep and bear arms. If the SCOTUS had wanted to "represent most Washingtonians", they would have upheld the ban!

Mike

. . . Other Rights

What about the NRA? No one seems to complain about them not protecting other rights.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that's because their NAME doesn't imply their commitment to the whole spectrum of rights.

If they were the National Civil Liberties Association then chiding them for being too focused on firearms might make sense.

The ACLU isn't the American Free Speech Union. Neither is it the American Freedom From Warrantless Searches Union. It is called the Civil Liberties union.

One might reasonably, from the NAME, expect that they would take an interest in the whole spectrum of CIVIL LIBERTIES rather than choosing to snub self defense and the bearing of arms. Clearly, the constitutionally protected right of children to medical procedures absent parental consent is more compelling.

I find their address of civil liberties somewhat wanting. I find their understanding of the domain somewhat wanting.

It is almost as though they're pretending to foster "civil liberties" to further some other agenda.

Or perhaps I'm just cynical.

And if you are supporting them, you are part of the problem and a disgrace to Ronald Reagan's name.

Click to expand...

Can't we all just get along?

What about the NRA?

Click to expand...

Uh, yeah....ArfinG summed it up pretty well...

If the NRA claimed that their mission was to support all Constitutional rights, then we'd have a problem.

Just like we SHOULD have a problem with an org that falsely claims to protect all Constitutional rights.

What in the world?! Another thread on this and not only is it NOT locked but there is a mod joining in on the bashing? I had serious hopes for this place. I had hoped that there would be one website that reached out to folks from both sides. But as I see here it is just another hang out for folks who simply want to BASH anything liberal.

Forget the idea that liberals may want to support the idea of gun ownership. Through that right out the window. Forget that the person who SIGNED the 86 gun ban was a conservative republican that is specifically revered in this very thread. Forget the idea that maybe, just maybe, we can reach more people with honey than vinegar.

Yes, these threads make me sick.

We're not all bashing anything liberal, but some of us are complaining about the liberal policies of the ACLU. And yes, some of us are vilifying them. I will admit to being one of those.

While I agree that free speech is an important right, it, too, must have limits, true? We don't see most gun advocates lobbying for the right to own Stinger missiles, so we accept that there are some limitations on gun rights. We support freedom of religion but we prosecute churches who use illegal drugs or promote rape in their polygamy. Obviously there are limits on religion as well. The ACLU defended NAMBLA's right to promote illegal sexual behavior. So at the same time they will defend a group's right to disseminate info about how to bugger little boys, they won't stand up for our right to defend ourselves.

It's true that you can, indeed, catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. However, since flies spread bacteria and disease, shouldn't we focus on just swatting them rather than attracting them? We're not going to win over converts who are diametrically opposed to gun rights. If a liberal supports the right to own guns they will stand up for those rights. No matter which side of an argument you find yourself on, you will always find those on your side that you wish you didn't have to associate with.

ACLU should be renamed, MCLU(Minority, Civil, Liberties, Union), normally they don't really care about the average person. You need to be viewed as "repressed" in order to get anything useful from them.

Exqueeze me, but it's your conscience speaking...

The ACLU does do a few good things...

Now, here's how us "gun folks" can sway 'em a little.

Join them. Do you have ANY idea what will be going on in their little boardrooms when their membership doubles?

Then, next year, when they send you a letter about your yearly membership dues, ask them "Hey, what about that 2nd amendment?"

And don't send any money with it.

Jeezus Kayrist on a tabasco pogo stick - it don't take a rocket scientist to follow the money!

Now, I've been around a while. Most of you older folks (some of whom I am hoping are still at least lurkers) know I am not from The Dark Side... We can infiltrate through their wire, and satchel-bomb their bunkers.

And now several folks will tell us either about how that'll never work, or how it's just impolite.

Dear "never work" - How do you know? Hey, all it takes is a few bucks, and a little time. It's the whole carrot and stick thing, you know? Betcha they come around, when they realize that that new building they're planning is gonna be kinda hard to pay for...

Dear "impolite" - Why don't you take your version of "the high road" back over to the democratic underground. Just because we try to be a little more "couth" around here is not a sign of weakness, or stupidity.

Yes, these threads make me sick.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. What's that old saying? Something XXX

bogie said:

And now several folks will tell us either about how that'll never work, or how it's just impolite.

Click to expand...

Put me down as the first. It'll never work.

Good reply on your part, though. It's a good idea but I don't see it happening. It'd take FAR too big an effort, it would have to be a hugely publicized thing to get enough people to make a difference, and even then the far left would rally their forces to offset the influx of us conservative infidels.

Isn't protecting the constitutional rights of the minority from the power of the majority - most Americans - precisely the role of the SCOTUS in our form of government?

Click to expand...

Close to it: The function of the SCOTUS is to interpret laws to determine if they are in keeping with the Constitution. This doesn't necessarily involve rights issues, but it may, and in this case it did. The pertinent fact is that the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, which is intended to do exactly what you say: Protect the rights of the individual against the potential "tyranny of the majority." What the Bill of Rights says, essentially, is that although majority rules, certain things are non-negotiable.

ArfinGreebly said:

The ACLU isn't the American Free Speech Union. Neither is it the American Freedom From Warrantless Searches Union.

Click to expand...

So if they changed their name, you'd support them? The person I was responding to said that cherry-picking was distasteful, and I pointed out the NRA does the same. While I agree that the ACLU does not protect the "whole spectrum" of civil liberties, they do protect some and that is good thing.

Politicians make all kinds of promises quite regularly, but most people take them with a grain of salt. You take their actions into account and decide based on those as well. I do the same with the ACLU. I never expected them to defend the 2A because they've never done anything that would give me the impression they would. Was anyone here really fooled into thinking the ACLU was going to be their gun rights representative?

ArfinGreebly said:

It is almost as though they're pretending to foster "civil liberties" to further some other agenda.

Click to expand...

The ACLU is accused of being too liberal or left wing all the time, and I'm not going to argue they aren't. However, I believe that is the fault of conservatives for allowing it to happen. Maybe if more conservatives sided with the ACLU (and supported civil liberties) when it comes to free speech, warrantless searches, etc. they would have more influence. Instead all we hear is that the ACLU is trying to destroy America and help Osama Bin Laden

H088 said:

You need to be viewed as "repressed" in order to get anything useful from them.

Click to expand...

Even if they only protected the rights of left handed pagan dwarfs, they are still protecting rights. They wouldn't be useful to me if that were the case, but they wouldn't deserve scorn either.

This is all going way off track from Heller anyway though.